Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

[BrianL]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

I'm confused.

I thought people born in the US were automatically granted US citizenship. That is also suggested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthri...tes_of_America

I haven't verified the validity of the wikipedia info, but it matches what I've heard in the past.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

This is a demonstration of how the right wing thinks. Let's reinterpret the constitution so we can bastardize the democratic process and keep a hold on power. No wonder they torture people and hold them without trial.

If people born in the United States are not natural born citizens, who is?


14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

28.jpg

http://fightthesmears.com/behind_the_smears

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

You really think that matter should be urgently decided now by the SC ?
You really think you ought to create a Constitutional brawl just now ?
You really think there is no agenda there ?
Either you're naive or punctilious.
Besides, create now a doubt over the legitimacy of your new president
would really be a mastermind's shot.
You people must have gone mad : the plane has two engines in flames, the pilot is doing bravely, but you discuss over the fine prints on his license. Have a nice crash everybody.

You really think that matter should be urgently decided now by the SC?
You really think you ought to create a Constitutional brawl just now?

Better to address the matter now than have it affect the legitimacy of President's next term.

You really think there is no agenda there ?

I don't have enough information to know yet, but most likely there is an agenda that we do not yet see.

Besides, create now a doubt over the legitimacy of your new president
would really be a mastermind's shot.

As said above, this should rectify issues of doubt before the electors meet on Dec 15. By the way, the electors are bound to uphold the US Constitution, so the Supreme Court's decision should bind their actions.

You people must have gone mad

Quite frankly, i think those are mad who think that the new President, whether it be Obama or McCain will: (i) significantly alter the course that this nation is on, or (ii) represent the will of the people.

I'm confused.

I thought people born in the US were automatically granted US citizenship. That is also suggested by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthri...tes_of_America

I haven't verified the validity of the wikipedia info, but it matches what I've heard in the past.

As I understand it US Citizenship is a different issue and not relevant to the requirements for becoming President. What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth. Hopefully, we will get clarification for the US Supreme Court after this matter is heard on the 5th.

[politicalfootballfan]

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Per the petitioner, the relevant facts are found in the highlight portion of this statement. As Barak's father was NOT a US Citizen at the time of Barak's birth, it is claimed that Barak is not a Natural Born Citizen.

This is my understanding as explained by the lawyer filing the case. Obama's birth certificate is not relevant, per his claims.

I'm going to bow-out of this thread and wait to hear how the US SC rules on this matter. I was intrigued about this case when I first learned of it this week and thought that this is something the forum members at iTulip would want to be made aware of. We can all speculate about this matter until we are blue-in-the-face, but it is in the hands of the SC Justices now. I sincerely hope this doesn't end in another Constitutional crisis.

[DemonD]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth.

From Wiki:

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.

So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

From Wiki:


So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

I would not say better.
The aim of those despicable plaintiffs is to sow doubts in public's mind - and they visibly succeeded, even in this forum.:mad:
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
Francois Marie Arouet (aka Voltaire)

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

From Wiki:


So what the US Supreme court is deciding on is a piece of legislation that is 218 years old!

There have been other legal decisions recently that make your "belief" patently false. The above Act basically ratifies that any child born of a US citizen or on US soil is a "natural born citizen." The constitution does not define your "belief," but the above mentioned Act does. Any consideration otherwise would be casting into doubt over two centuries of legal precedent, and, morally, I believe would be completely wrong (not just for Obama but for McCain and anyone else born of american parents but not on american soil, or any other permutation).

That you cannot see this as a direct ploy by a right-winged racist leads me to believe that you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe.

If you're going to attack a poster, at least quote relevant legislation:

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.

You're quote is not applicable in this matter. Obama's dad was a British Citizen, not a US Citizen (at least this is one of the claims being made to the SC).

Children of non-US citizens are not Natural Born US Citizens, even if they are born on US Soil.

With respect to your mean spirited "you probably should be a bit more careful with what you read and believe" comment, perhaps you are projecting, especially given your inappropriate interpretation of above legislation.

P.S. You know, I really wanted to bow-out of this thread, but I'm not going to sit back and be demeaned, especially when those doing the demeaning are either disrespectful of the Constitution, irrespective of its age, or are unable to appropriate interpret and apply the relevant legal precedents.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

If the result had been reversed, McCain being today President-elect,
do you think, in conscience, and would you dare to state it here,
that those despicable manœuvers would go on like that ?
Give us a break. :rolleyes:

[WDCRob]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

I'm really torn on this one.

Having a conservative party that's completely loopy and believes only the things it hears in its own insulated echo chamber is good fun, and now that their era has ended will help insure that they are relegated to the deep wilderness for a long time.

On the other hand, democracy is well served by having a strong opposition and I'm sick of seeing outright lunacy treated with respect. (And the fact that Clarence Thomas takes up your cause after another justice has rejected it shouldn't exactly reassure you about its merits).

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

I would not say better.
The aim of those despicable plaintiffs is to sow doubts in public's mind - and they visibly succeeded, even in this forum.:mad:
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.
Francois Marie Arouet (aka Voltaire)

If the result had been reversed, McCain being today President-elect,
do you think, in conscience, and would you dare to state it here,
that those despicable manœuvers would go on like that ?
Give us a break. :rolleyes:

You obviously have absolutely no real political or legal experience. Both sides are as ruthless as each other, and any comment to the contrary is extraordinarily naive and false.

In any event, this case is against McCain as well, with similar claims. If the SC rules in the plaintiff's favor, both candidates will be found to be ineligible.

But let's stick to the Constitution and the legal merits of this case, rather than devolving into some childish political rants attempting to disguise itself as adult discussion.

[DemonD]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

My apologies. The correct legislation is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (with the origins of course going back to 1790).

http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVA...7211a6e6dfb763

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

What this person is doing is using a legal technicality by saying a "natural born citizen" is not a "citizen at birth." Morally and ethically I find this reprehensible, and all judges to this point have found that this argument holds no merit. The fact is there is no where in any legal statute or constitution that defines the term "natural born citizen." Because his argument has already been thrown out, the legal precedent has been set that "natural born citizen" = "citizen at birth." Because Thomas has brought it to the table, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether to maintain this precedent.

Let's review, then:

What is important here is the definition of Natural Born Citizen, which I understand is currently defined as an individual who is born on US soil to two parents, both having US Citizenship at the time of the child's birth.

You have no legal basis to "understand" this definition as such, because there is no law, and has never been a law that has ever defined "natural born citizen" in such a manner.

[hellstan]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

You obviously have absolutely no real political or legal experience. Both sides are as ruthless as each other, and any comment to the contrary is extraordinarily naive and false.

In any event, this case is against McCain as well, with similar claims. If the SC rules in the plaintiff's favor, both candidates will be found to be ineligible.

But let's stick to the Constitution and the legal merits of this case, rather than devolving into some childish political rants attempting to disguise itself as adult discussion.

Dear Clarence,
Prattler's haughtiness of the jurists, as we say here.
Disguising futile pretense under legal rags, and drawing flimsy authority from such a fraud.
I have no political experience indeed, but have been instrumental in the career of at least two prominent European politicians.
Since Drumont, Gobineau and Daudet, extreme-right always have founded its ideology in Blut und Boden discourse, even in its "modern" avatars, and you don't fail to do so - even using the Constitution when convenient.
Clarence, as you're "naive" enough (meaning perverse) to hope the SC will give room to those childish judicial reveries, I'll leave you the so-called merits of this case - and the football - and Lenin.

[WDCRob]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

There was never any other outcome possible despite what you might have heard if you get your 'news' from right wing nutjobs:

08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Supreme Court to Conference on Obama's Prez Eligibility

There was never any other outcome possible despite what you might have heard if you get your 'news' from right wing nutjobs:

08A407 DONOFRIO, LEO C. V. WELLS, NJ SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay addressed to Justice Thomas and referred to the Court is denied.

From the WaPo:

Right-wing blogs were outraged when Justice David H. Souter denied Donofrio's petition for an injunction, and left-wing blogs smelled trouble when Justice Clarence Thomas referred the matter to the full court for consideration.

In fact, both were routine procedures, as the court's action today shows. There were no recorded dissents to the decision dismissing the case.

The left-right paradigm is not representative of political reality.

Follow the money - not the surface ideologies.